See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275652897

Stress-Strain Response of High Strength Concrete and Application of the

Existing Models

Article  in  Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology · September 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,956

1 author:

Tehmina Ayub
NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi
49 PUBLICATIONS   453 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT View project

Modelling of FRC Beam and Beam-Column Joint using Abaqus and Ansys View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tehmina Ayub on 01 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014
ISSN: 2040-7459; e-ISSN: 2040-7467
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2014
Submitted: February 04, 2014 Accepted: March 01, 2014 Published: September 15, 2014

Stress-strain Response of High Strength Concrete and Application of the Existing Models
Tehmina Ayub, Nasir Shafiq and M. Fadhil Nuruddin
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar,
Tronoh 31750, Malaysia

Abstract: Stress-strain model of concrete is essentially required during design phases of structural members. With
the evolution of normal concrete to High Strength Concrete (HSC); various predictive models of stress-strain
behavior of High Strength Concrete (HSC) are available in the literature. Such models developed by various
researchers are differing to each other, because of the different mix proportions and material properties. This study
represents a comparative analysis of available stress-strain models with the experimental results of three different
series (100% cement concrete, Silica Fume (SF) concrete and Metakaolin (MK) concrete) of high strength concrete
mixes. Compressive strength and stress-strain behavior of 100×200 mm cylinders made of all Prepared mixes was
determined at with curing age of 28 days. Compressive strength of all mixes was found in the range of 71-87 MPa.
Stress-strain behavior of tested cylinders was found much different from the available predictive models. In view of
the dissimilarity occurred between the predictive stress-strain behavior and the experimental data; a new predictive
model is proposed, which adequately satisfy the experimental results.

Keywords: Compressive stress-strain curves, high strength concrete, metakaolin, predictive models, silica fume

INTRODUCTION strain behavior and strength. At the time when Popovics

Use of High Strength Concrete (HSC) particularly
in mega-construction is becoming more popular,
because of its value-added benefits, which resulted in
the reduction of structural member sizes, durability and
longer life. For concrete as structural material, its
compressive strength is an essential parameter requires
for ultimate strength design of various structural
members. Failure response of a structural member is
usually studied using nonlinear analysis, for which the
compressive stress-strain curves are used as the main
design basis (Lu and Zhao, 2010). Recently, Lu and
Zhao (2010) represented a review of the compressive
stress-strain models published during last few years. It
was observed that most of the available models are not
capable to predict the stress-strain response of HSC.
Therefore, they proposed a new empirical model,
which according to them, is found more versatile and
applied on all their experimental results and compared
with the previously generated stress-strain curves of
Hsu and Hsu (1994), Van Gysel and Taerwe (1996)
and Wee et al. (1996).
An interesting question is to find the reasons of
invalidation of predictive models to different sets of
experimental results. Undoubtedly, the prediction of
concrete behavior has been just like obtaining a specific
number by rolling a dice. Where, despite using the
same concrete mix ingredients, quantities, size of the
molds, curing procedure and temperature, there is less
probability of obtaining the same compressive stress-
(1973) and Carreira and Chu (1985) proposed their
models for the compressive strength of HSC, the
compressive strength of the concrete was not as high as
it is today, even the cement composition has been
changed and Superplasticizers (SPs) are so advanced,
which can better improve the concrete quality.
Therefore, there are very less chances of the potential
applicability of the predictive models of Popovics
(1973) and Carreira and Chu (1985) for the HSCs of
today. Additionally, mineral admixtures or
Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) have
now become an essential constituent of the HSC
composition, which may possibly influence the stress-
strain behavior. Furthermore, the mix design which
authors used to propose their predictive models for the
compressive stress-strain behavior of HSC were
adopted e.g., Popovics (1973), Carreira and Chu (1985),
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993), Van Gysel and
Taerwe (1996) and Lu and Zhao (2010). Only few
researchers used the original mix designs to propose
their model e.g., Wang et al. (1978), Hsu and Hsu
(1994) and Wee et al. (1996). Upon reviewing these
models, it has been found that, while proposing their
models, described the deficiencies of the previous
predictive models of the stress-strain behavior of HSC;
for example, Hsu and Hsu (1994) claimed that, their
model is simple and capable of predicting the complete
stress-strain curve of HSC of compressive strength
exceeding 69 MPa. However, Carreira and Chu (1985)
and in CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993), stress-strain

Corresponding Author: Tehmina Ayub, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri
Iskandar, Tronoh 31750, Malaysia
1174
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

Table 1: Existing stress-strain models for HSC

Valid compressive
Authors (year) Model description Parameter description strength range (MPa) Author's remarks
Single model capable of predicting stress-strain response from the origin to ultimate (i.e., 0 < ε ≤ εu ).
Sargin and ε ε 2 E
A = it ; D = 0.65 − 7.25fc′ × 10−3 -
fc A � c′ � + (D − 1) � c′ � Ec
Handa (1969) εc εc
= k3 Eit = 5979�fc′ ; ε′c = 0.0021
fc′ εc εc 2
1 + (A − 2) � ′ � + D � ′ �
εc εc
Popovics (1973) εc β = .058fc′ + 1 Up to 51
fc β � ′ �
εc
=
fc′ ε β
β − 1 + � c′ �
εc
2 A, B, C and D are constants which can be
Wang et al. fc A(εc ⁄ε′c ) + B(εc ⁄ε′c ) Up to 76
(1978) ′
= estimated by considering the condition A
fc 1 + C(εc ⁄ε′c ) + D(εc ⁄ε′c )2
fc 0.45
⎧ ′ = 0.45 for εc ⁄ε′c = ⎫
fc Eit ⁄Ec
f
⎨c =1 for εc ⁄ε′c = 1⎬
⎩fc′ ⎭
Carreira and fc β(εc ⁄εc )′ 1 23 to 80 Does not fit on
= β=
Chu (1985) fc′ β − 1 + (εc ⁄εc′ )β f′ current data, due
1−( ′ c )
εc Eit to negative value
fc′ 24.82 of β
Eit = ′ � ′ + 0.92�
εc fc
ε′c = (1,680 + 7.1 fc′ ) × 10−6
Two models, one for combine prediction of the behavior of rising branch and falling branch up to the limiting strain (i.e., 0 < ε ≤ εc,lim ), while the second model
predicts the behavior of the depressing branch from limiting strain up to the ultimate strain (i.e., εc,lim < ε ≤ εu ).
CEB-FIP Model For 0 ≤ ε ≤ εc,lim 2 Up to 90 Modified form of
εc,lim 1 Eit Eit
Code 90 (1993) E ε ε 2 = �� + 1� + �� + 1� − 2� Sargin and Handa
� Eit � � c′ � − � c′ � εc′ 2 2Ec 2Ec
c εc εc (1969)
fc = fc′ εc,lim
Eit εc
1 + � − 2� � ′ � η 2 =
Ec εc ε′c
For ε > εc,lim E E
η22 � it − 2� + 2η2 − it
fc′ Ec 2Ec
fc = ξ=4 2
ξ 2 ε 2 4 ε E
�η − 2 � � c′ � + �η − ξ� � c′ � �η2 � it − 2� + 1�
2Ec
2 η 2 εc 2 εc
For 0 ≤ ε ≤ εc,lim 3
Hsu and Hsu fc′ > 69 The expression is
(1994) fc nβ(εc ⁄ε′c ) β=� � + 2.59 the modified form
= 65.23
fc′ nβ − 1 + (εc ⁄ε′c )nβ of Carreira and
where, Eit = 0.0736w1.51 (fc′ )0.3 , Chu (1985)
For ε > εc,lim εo = (1680 + 7.1fc′ ) × 10−6
ε ε
−0.8� c′ − c ,lim �
0.5
For 0 ≤ ε ≤ ε′c ; n=1
fc = 0.3fc′ e εc ε ′c For ε′c ≤ ε ≤ εd ;
n=1 if fc′ < 62 MPa
n=2 if 62 MPa < fc′ < 76 MPa
n=3 if 76 MPa < fc′ < 90 MPa
n=5 if fc′ ≥ 90 MPa
εc,lim is the strain at 0.3fc′ in the falling branch of
stress-strain curve
Van Gysel and For 0 ≤ ε ≤ εc,lim 2 Up to 90 The expression is
ε c,lim 1 Eit Eit
Taerwe (1996) E ε ε 2 = �� + 1� + �� + 1� − 2� the modified form
� Eit � � c′ � − � c′ � εc′ 2 2Ec 2Ec
c εc εc of CEB-FIP
fc = fc′ εc,lim Model Code 90
Eit εc
1 + � − 2� � ′ � η2 = ′
Ec εc εc (1993)
For ε > εc,lim E E
η22 � it − 2� + 2η2 − it
fc ′ Ec 2Ec
fc = ξ=4 2
ξ 2 ε 2 4 ε E
�η − 2 � � c′ � + �η − ξ� � c′ � �η2 � it − 2� + 1�
2Ec
2 η 2 εc 2 εc
Lu and Zhao For 0 ≤ ε ≤ εL 50-140 For 0 ≤ ε ≤ εL ,
1 Eit 4 1 Eit 4 2 4
(2010) fc (Eit ⁄Ec )(εc ⁄ε′c ) − (εc ⁄ε′c )2 εL = ε′c �� + � + �� + � − � modified form of
=� � 10 Ec 5 10 Ec 5 5 Sargin and Handa
fc′ 1 + (Eit ⁄Ec − 2)(εc ⁄ε′c )
For ε > εd where, (1969) and for
fc 1 εL is the strain at 0.8fc′ in the falling branch of ε > εL , model of
= Van Gysel and
fc′ 1 + λ[(εc ⁄ε′c ) − 1⁄(εL ⁄ε′c ) − 1]2(1−λ) stress-strain curve
Taerwe (1996) is
used
Two models, one for predicting the behavior of the rising branch up to the peak point (i.e., 0 < ε ≤ ε′c ), while the second model for predicting the behavior of falling
branch from the peak point to the ultimate (i.e., ε′c < ε ≤ εu ).
Wee et al. For fc′ ≤ 50 MPa 1 50- 120
β=
(1996) fc β(εc ⁄ε′c ) fc′
= 1 − ( )
fc′ β − 1 + (εc ⁄ε′c )β ε′c Eit
1
For 50 < fc′ ≤ 120 MPa where, Eit = 10,200 (fc′ ) �3
3.0 1.3
fc ′
k1 β(εc ⁄εc ) 50 50
= k1 = � ′ � ; k 2 = � ′ �
fc′ k β − 1 + (ε ⁄ε′ )k 2 β fc fc
1 c c
fc′ : The maximum compressive strength in MPa; ε′c : The corresponding strains; β: The parameter that controls the descending branch; w: The unit weigh of the
concrete in kg⁄m3

1175
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014
models were already proposed for compressive strength
exceeding 69 MPa and the model of Carreira and Chu
(1985) was simpler. Similarly, the model of CEB-FIP
Code 90 (1993) has the assumption of the fixed value of
the strain and the steepness of the softening branch,
which are not appreciated by the researchers (Lu and
Zhao, 2010; Van Gysel and Taerwe, 1996) and
therefore, predictive model of CEB-FIP Model Code 90
(1993) is not suitable for HSC. Wee et al. (1996)
proposed their model for HSC of compressive strength
ranging from 50 to 120 MPa. The appreciable fact is
that, they carried out a vast experimental investigation,
which was not done earlier by any author who proposed
their models for the compressive stress-strain curves. In
order to determine influence of different mix
compositions on the stress-strain behavior of their
specimens; they (Wee et al., 1996) applied four
previously proposed models of Hognestad (1951),
Wang et al. (1978), Carreira and Chu (1985) and CEB-
FIP Model Code 90 (1993) to predict the stress-strain
curves and found, the model of Wang et al. (1978) has
the best fit. In spite of the closeness to the actual stress-
strain behavior, Wee et al. (1996) and Lu and Zhao
(2010) did not appreciate the predictive model proposed
by Wang et al. (1978) due to its complexity, which is
tedious and requires computer aid. Therefore, they
(Wee et al., 1996) proposed a new predictive model,
based on the model of Carreira and Chu (1985)
(Table 1).
According to the authors of the current
investigation, none of the predictive models,
themselves, are not deficient as they were mainly based
on the experimental results of the others rather than
their original experimental investigation. Therefore,
there is a great need of experimental investigation to
determine the fitting of all predictive models as
represented in Table 1. Upon the examination of these
models, it can be observed that, the predictive models
of HSC are based mainly on the two parameters
required to generate stress-strain curves including
maximum compressive strength and its corresponding
strains. Moreover, to date, three categories of these
models are proposed, as follow:
Type I: Single model capable of predicting stress-
strain response from the origin to ultimate
(i.e., 0 < 𝜀𝜀 ≤ εu ).
Type II: Two models, one for predicting the behavior
of the rising branch up to the peak point (i.e.,
0 < 𝜀𝜀 ≤ ε′c ), while the second model for
Table 2: Mix materials and quantities for HSC preparation
Mix quantity (kg/m3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series OPC Silica fume Metakaolin Fine aggregate <10 mm
“P” 450 - - 670
“S” 405 45 - 670
“M” 405 - 45 670
1176
predicting the behavior of falling branch from
the peak point to the ultimate (i.e., ε′c < 𝜀𝜀 ≤
εu ).
Type III: Two models, one for combine prediction of
the behavior of rising branch and falling
branch up to the limiting strain (i.e., 0 < 𝜀𝜀 ≤
εc,lim )., while the second model predicts the
behavior of the depressing branch from
limiting strain up to the ultimate strain (i.e.,
εc,lim < 𝜀𝜀 ≤ εu ).
The principal aim of this study is to investigate the
stress-strain behavior as obtained by using different
predictive models and to identify their deficiencies as
highlighted by different researchers. A predictive model
is also proposed based on the proposed models of Hsu
and Hsu (1994) as well as Lu and Zhao (2010) which is
capable of generating stress-strain curves closer to the
experimental results.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Material properties and mix design: Detail of the
material used for the preparation of the HSC and their
quantities are presented in Table 2; however, physical
and chemical given of cement and mineral admixtures
used are listed in Table 3.
Casting and testing of specimens: For each series
(Table 2), two batches of HSC were prepared and from
each batch, three cylinders of size 100×200 mm were
cast and cured for 28 days. Before pouring the concrete
in the molds conforming to specification C470/C470M,
slump of the concrete was determined, immediately
after mixing the concrete in compliance with ASTM
C192/C192M-13a and it was found that, slump is
within the limit of 100±10 mm then, the all concrete
specimens were demolded and cured.
After completion of the curing period, all 12
cylinders (4 cylinders for each series) were tested using
compression testing machine of 1000 kN capacity.
Before testing, specimens were air dried for a few hours
and capped with mortar plaster to ensure the uniform
distribution of the compressive load between cylinders
and machine. The compression test was performed
according to ASTM C39-03 (ASTM, 2003). Strain
measurements were recorded using LVDT. The
compressive strength results of the best two of three
cylinders along with the strain results are given in
Table 4. The stress-strain curves for all three series
Coarse aggregates
-----------------------------------
10-20 mm Water Superplasticizer
600 500 180 Variable, target
600 500 180 Slump 100±10 mm
600 500 180
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

Table 3: Physical and chemical composition of OPC, SF and MK

OPC Silica fume Metakaolin
Specific gravity 3.050 - -
BET surface area (m2/g) 0.392 16.455 12.174
Loss on Ignition (LOI) - 2.000 1.850
Average particle size (µm) - - 2.500-4.500
SiO 2 (%) 20.440 91.400 53.870
Al 2 O 3 (%) 2.840 0.090 38.570
CaO (%) 67.730 0.930 0.040
MgO (%) 1.430 0.780 0.960
SO 3 (%) 2.200 - -
Na 2 O (%) 0.020 0.390 0.040
K 2 O (%) 0.260 2.410 2.680
TiO 2 (%) 0.170 - -
MnO (%) 0.160 0.050 0.010
Fe 2 O 3 (%) 4.640 - 1.400
TiO 2 (%) - 0.040 0.950
P 2 O 5 (%) - 0.380 0.100
Properties were determined by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area analysis

Table 4: Compression test results at curing age of 28 days

Actual results Avg. results (MPa)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Strain (mm/mm)
Compressive ----------------------------------------- Elastic Compressive Elastic Sample
Series Cylinder IDs strength (MPa) Peak Ultimate modulus (MPa) strength modulus S.D. (MPa) variance (%)
“P” Cylinder 1 71.56 0.002309 0.011739 42,347 72.880 42,604 1.750 3.048
Cylinder 2 72.17 0.002377 0.018320 42,467
Cylinder 3 75.45 0.002362 0.012199 43,101
Cylinder 4 72.34 0.002204 0.011287 42,500
“S” Cylinder 1 82.33 0.002319 0.014198 44,373 79.196 43,944 1.703 2.898
Cylinder 2 77.24 0.002269 0.017283 43,439
Cylinder 3 80.34 0.002305 0.020203 44,013
Cylinder 4 80.01 0.002376 0.022226 43,952
“M” Cylinder 1 85.23 0.002381 0.011832 44,888 85.750 44,979 1.087 1.182
Cylinder 2 84.47 0.002416 0.017960 44,754
Cylinder 3 86.67 0.002345 0.012493 45,139
Cylinder 4 86.64 0.002233 0.013233 45,134
Avg.: Average; S.D.: Standard deviation

obtained from the testing of 100×200 mm cylinders are experimental investigation carried by the Wee et al.
shown in Fig. 1. (1996) was the only comprehensive and close to the
current experimental investigation; however, in rest of
ANALYSIS OF THE the investigations, previously generated data was used.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS It was however, mentioned by Popovics (1973) and
Carreira and Chu (1985) that, there are several unseen
Compressive strength results consisting of mean factors which affect the stress-strain behavior. For
strength, standard deviation and sample variance are example stress-strain curve is very much sensitive to
listed in Table 4. Based on the statistical analysis of the the testing conditions (type and stiffness of the
test results, standard deviation was obtained between 1 compression testing machine, loading rate and
to 1.75 MPa and the coefficient of variation was found duration); specimen’s shape and size; position, type and
length of the strain gages applied on the specimens,
lower than 3%. The consistency of the stress-strain
specimen age, concrete mix composition (particularly
curves is shown in Fig. 1 indicates that, all mixes were coarse aggregate size and quantity), etc., (Popovics,
well designed and highly cohesive. Highest average 1973; Carreira and Chu, 1985). Carreira and Chu
compressive strength was obtained in series “M” (1985) further added that, the shape of the descending
(Table 4), which was 17.66 and 7.22% higher than branch is influenced by the stiffness of the specimen
series “P” and series “S”, respectively. The versus stiffness of the compression testing machine,
compressive strength of series “S” was 9.74% higher development of the micro cracks at the interface of the
than of series “P”. aggregate and cement matrix. That is the reason; stress-
strain relation is strongly affected by the rate of the
Comparison of the mix design used in current strains, quality, content and characteristics of the
investigation: The authors collected the data of the cement matrix and aggregates.
experimental mix designs used to formulate the Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a
predictive models for High Strength Concrete (HSC) comprehensive experimental work while proposing any
from 1990 to date to observe the effect of mix design predictive model so that researchers can better
and aggregate size on the stress-strain curves. The understand the effects of the mentioned
1177
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Series "P"- Cylinder 1
Series "P"- Cylinder 2 12
80 Series "P"- Cylinder 3
Series "P"- Cylinder 4
Series "S"- Cylinder 1 10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Series "S"- Cylinder 2
Series "S"- Cylinder 3 9
60 Series "S"- Cylinder 4
Series "M"- Cylinder 1
Series "M"- Cylinder 2 7.5
50 Series "M"- Cylinder 3
Series "M"- Cylinder 4
40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 1: Experimental stress-strain curves of all investigated series of HSC

(a)

120
Series "P"- Cylinder 1
Series "P"- Cylinder 2
Series "P"- Cylinder 3
100 Series "P"- Cylinder 4
Compressive strength (MPa)

Series "S"- Cylinder 1

Series "S"- Cylinder 2
Series "S"- Cylinder 3
80 Series "S"- Cylinder 4
Series "M"- Cylinder 1
Series "M"- Cylinder 2
Series "M"- Cylinder 3
60 Series "M"- Cylinder 4

40

20

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(b)

Fig. 2: Comparison of the current experimental results with the test results of Wee et al. (1996)
1178
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014
Table 5: Mix composition and content of FRC used in existing studies
Mixing materials and their quantities (kg/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder Coarse aggregate
size ---------------------------- Peak Elastic
(dia.×height) SF Fine Max. size Water Compressive strains modulus
Authors (mm) Cement (%) aggregate (mm) Quantity (w/b) ratio Superplasticizer strength (MPa) (mm/mm) (GPa)
Wee 100×200 425 - 722 19 1083 170 (0.40) - 63.2 0.002169 41.8
et al. (1996) 383 42 (10) 722 1083 170 (0.40) 70.2 0.002100 43.0
437 48 (10) 698 1046 170 (0.35) 85.9 0.002260 45.0
389 97 (20) 698 1046 170 (0.35) 90.2 0.002430 44.4
550 - 640 1045 165 (0.30) 78.3 0.002320 44.3
495 55 (10) 640 1045 165 (0.30) 85.9 0.002310 44.3
640 - 587 1043 160 (0.25) 85.6 0.002320 45.6
608 32 587 1043 160 (0.25) 96.2 0.002370 46.6
576 64 587 1043 160 (0.25) 102.8 0.002470 46.7
544 96 587 1043 160 (0.25) 104.2 0.002490 46.3
675 67.5 520 1010 150 (0.20) 119.9 0.002750 49.1
Max.: Maximum

parameters. Though, these parameters are not
considered in any of the proposed models (Table 1), but
indirectly, few researchers considered material
parameter, stress-strain curve shape parameter and/or
constants.
The experimental data of Wee et al. (1996) is given
in Table 5 and compared with the experimental data in
Fig. 2.
As mentioned in Table 5, for the same quantity of
water and the same size of aggregates, Wee et al.
(1996) varied their experimental data by increasing the
amount of cement paste (cement+water) and lowering
of the aggregate content especially fine aggregate. By
doing so, higher strength of the concrete was obtained
while the post peak branch of the stress strain curve was
observed steeper. The increase in compressive strength
is mainly due to the increase in the cement content
which offered substantial strength to the cement matrix
and shifted the failure towards the aggregates and
results higher strength properties. Referring to the
Fig. 2, it can be seen that the stress-strain curves of
current study appropriately close to those of Wee et al.
(1996). This shows that, predictive model of Wee et al.
(1996) can closely predicts the stress-strain behaviour
of the current study.
Application of the existing predictive stress-strain
models on the current data: All models, as listed in
the Table 1, are applied on the current experimental
results given in Table 3. The predicted and
experimental stress-strain curves are presented in Fig. 3
to 5. It can be seen that, the models of Wee et al. (1996)
and Lu and Zhao (2010) well represent the post peak
branch of the stress-strain curves, while the proposed
model of Hsu and Hsu (1994) is suitable for the
ascending branch. For all models illustrated in Table 1,
goodness of fit of the predicted stress-strain curves to
the experimental stress-strain curves of series “P” and
series “M” is investigated in terms of Root mean square
error “𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅” and absolute fraction of variance “𝑉𝑉”,
following the procedure in Khan et al. (2013). These
parameters were calculated by selecting the stress
values obtained by experiment and calculated from the
predictive models at the same level of strain values.
1179
“𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅” and “𝑉𝑉” were calculated manually using
Eq. (1) and (2), which are described as follow
(Table 6):
∑|𝑡𝑡 𝑖𝑖 −𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖 |2
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � 𝑛𝑛
(1)
∑|𝑡𝑡 𝑖𝑖 −𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖 |2
𝑉𝑉 = 1 − ∑|𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖 |2
(2)
where, “t i ”, “𝑜𝑜𝑖𝑖 ” and “𝑛𝑛” represent the experimental
results (used as target), predicted results (used as
output) and number of observations, respectively.
As mentioned in Table 5, the model of Wee et al.
(1996) and Lu and Zhao (2010) better captured the
shape of the descending branch of the current
experimental results. However, as mentioned by Lu and
Zhao (2010), the drawback of the model of Wee et al.
(1996) is the discontinuity of the curve at maximum
compressive stress. Therefore, the proposed model of
Lu and Zhao (2010) is selected as the suitable model for
the descending branch and the model of Hsu and Hsu
(1994) is selected to predict the rising branch of all
stress-strain curves shown in Fig. 3 to 5.
Newly proposed compressive stress-strain curves of
HSC: As mentioned in the previous section, the models
of the Hsu and Hsu (1994) and Lu and Zhao (2010) are
the better representative models of the rising and falling
branches of the stress-strain curves, respectively.
Therefore, two equations are proposed for the current
experimental results. The first equation was proposed
for 0 < ε ≤ εc,lim , where εc,lim is the strain
corresponding to the limiting stress (fc,lim ) level of
0.96fc′ in the falling branch, while second equation was
proposed for fc > fc,lim or fc > .96 fc′ , whereas, Lu and
Zhao (2010) suggested the limiting stress (fc,lim ) level
of 0.96 fc′ is the value of εc,lim corresponding to 0.8 fc′
(Table 1). The reason for selecting the limiting stress
(fc,lim ) level of 0.96 fc′ in the falling branch is the
appearance of discontinuity when the model was
applied to the current experimental data.
The description of the proposed equations by the
authors of the current study is as follows:
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

For 0 < 𝜀𝜀 ≤ 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 : For 𝜀𝜀 > 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 :

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐′ )𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝑓𝑓 𝑐𝑐,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙

𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (3) 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 = {1+0.1(𝑛𝑛 −1)} (4)
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 −1+(𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐′ ) 1+0.1(𝑛𝑛−1)���𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐′ �−1����𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ⁄𝜀𝜀 𝑐𝑐′ �−1��

where, In the following Eq. (1) and (2), the term “𝑛𝑛” is the
parameter, which contributes in the toughness of
𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′
3 the curve, while “β ” and exponential function “1 +
𝛽𝛽 = � � + 2.59 and 𝑛𝑛 = 3
P

65.23 0.1 (𝑛𝑛 − 1)” decides the shape of the curve in the

Table 6: “RMS” and “V” of the all predictive models

CEB-FIP Van Gysel
Popovics Carreira and Model Code Hsu and Hsu and Taerwe Wee et al. Lu and
Series Cylinder Parameters (1973) Chu (1985) 90 (1993) (1994) (1996) (1996) Zhao (2010)
“P” Cylinder 1 RMS 4.9950 4.5910 6.9550 3.9640 6.3750 2.5680 3.1110
Variance 0.8931 0.9169 0.7224 0.9146 0.7726 0.9777 0.9492
Cylinder 2 RMS 4.7120 5.3630 4.5290 3.3440 4.6120 11.8020 4.2600
Variance 0.9509 0.9400 0.9537 0.9704 0.9518 0.7887 0.9600
Cylinder 3 RMS 9.8850 11.0450 7.5940 6.7220 7.6050 18.2630 8.9770
Variance 0.8578 0.8345 0.9002 0.9142 0.9005 0.6603 0.8725
Cylinder 4 RMS 10.0220 11.2310 6.7190 6.8250 6.6130 15.2770 7.1000
Variance 0.8599 0.8366 0.9162 0.9161 0.9214 0.7383 0.9132
Series “P” RMS 7.4040 8.0580 6.4490 5.21375 6.3010 11.9780 5.8620
Average Variance 0.8904 0.8820 0.8731 0.9288 0.8866 0.7913 0.9237
“S” Cylinder 1 RMS 5.9910 6.4340 5.8810 4.0490 6.3730 8.7270 3.7400
Variance 0.9884 0.9868 0.9889 0.9940 0.9869 0.9761 0.9953
Cylinder 2 RMS 6.5110 6.1090 9.0160 7.1680 8.2790 2.9810 5.0190
Variance 0.9809 0.9834 0.9638 0.9735 0.9696 0.9962 0.9882
Cylinder 3 RMS 8.1020 7.5910 10.4570 8.8880 9.4820 0.8050 6.4780
Variance 0.9442 0.9518 0.9018 0.9218 0.9199 0.9995 0.9618
Cylinder 4 RMS 4.9930 4.7390 7.2040 8.0500 6.8670 7.5730 4.5010
Variance 0.9879 0.9892 0.9750 0.9662 0.9773 0.9737 0.9900
Series “S” RMS 6.3993 6.2183 8.1395 7.0388 7.7503 5.0215 4.9345
Average Variance 0.9754 0.9778 0.9574 0.9639 0.9634 0.9864 0.9838
“M” Cylinder 1 RMS 7.3250 7.7850 6.9490 5.1460 7.1570 11.0120 5.7180
Variance 0.9839 0.9820 0.9865 0.9905 0.9858 0.9653 0.9898
Cylinder 2 RMS 4.6080 4.8500 4.9180 4.9010 3.9010 6.1200 1.3670
Variance 0.9876 0.9864 0.9853 0.9841 0.9909 0.9786 0.9988
Cylinder 3 RMS 8.1040 7.7750 11.0280 9.6530 9.2050 1.1230 6.3230
Variance 0.9209 0.9287 0.8277 0.8413 0.8839 0.9985 0.9411
Cylinder 4 RMS 5.5450 5.7500 6.9080 6.4250 4.2850 2.2370 3.1780
Variance 0.9655 0.9637 0.9320 0.9345 0.9752 0.9936 0.9842
Series “M” RMS RMS 6.3960 6.540 7.4510 6.5310 6.1370 5.1230
Average Variance Variance 0.9645 0.9652 0.9329 0.9376 0.9590 0.9840
Average RMS 6.7330 6.9390 7.3470 6.2610 6.7300 7.3740 4.9810
Variance 0.9434 0.9417 0.9211 0.9434 0.9363 0.9205 0.9620

80
Popovics (1993) 12
Carreira & Chu (1985)
70 CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
10.5
Compressive strength (MPa)

60 Wee et al. (1996)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)

Experimental (Cylinder 1) 9
50
7.5
40
6
30
4.5
20
3
10
1.5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Compressive strains (mm/mm)

(a)

1180
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

80 Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985)
CEB-FIP Model Code (1993) 10.5
70 Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
9

Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)
60

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 2)
50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Compressive strains (mm/mm)

(b)

80
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985)
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993) 10.5
70
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
9
Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

60

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 3)

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(c)

80
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985)
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
10.5
70
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
9
Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

60
Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)

Experimental (Cylinder 4)
50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(d)

Fig. 3: Comparison of the predictive and experimental stress-strain curves of series “P"

1181
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80 CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996) 10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee t al. (1996)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 1) 9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(a)

80
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985)
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
10.5
70
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
9
Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

60

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 2)
50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(b)

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80 CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996) 10.5
70
Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)

Experimental (Cylinder 3) 9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(c)

1182
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80 CEB- FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996) 10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 4) 9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(d)

Fig. 4: Comparison of the predictive and experimental stress-strain curves of series “S"

100
Popovics (1973) 13.5
90 Carreira & Chu (1985)
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994) 12
80
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Wee et al. (1996) 10.5
70 Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental
60 9

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(a)

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80 CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996) 10.5
70
Compressive strength (MPa)

Wee et al. (1996)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Lu & Zhao (2010)

Experimental (Cylinder 2) 9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(b)

1183
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80 CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994)
Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996) 10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Wee et al. (1996)
Lu & Zhao (2010) 9
60 Experimental

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(c)

90
Popovics (1973)
Carreira & Chu (1985) 12
80
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993)
Hsu & Hsu (1994) 10.5
70 Van Gysel & Taerwe (1996)
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

Wee et al. (1996)
Lu & Zhao (2010) 9
60 Experimental

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(d)

Fig. 5: Comparison of the predictive and experimental stress-strain curves of series “M"
80
Lu & Zhao (2010) 12
New Proposal
70
Experimental (Cylinder 1)
10.5
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (ksi)

60
9
50
7.5
40
6
30
4.5
20
3
10
1.5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Compressive Strains (mm/mm)

(a)

1184
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

80
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 10.5
70
Experimental (Cylinder 2)
9

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (ksi)

60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive Strains (mm/mm)
(b)

80
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 10.5
70
Experimental (Cylinder 3)
9
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (ksi)

60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive Strain (mm/mm)

(c)

80
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 10.5
70
Experimental (Cylinder 4)
9
Compressive strength (MPa)

60
Compressive strength (ksi)

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(d)

Fig. 6: Comparison of the proposed model with the experimental data of series “P” and the proposed model of Lu and Zhao
(2010)
1185
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
Experimental (Cylinder 1) 12
80
New Proposal
10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(a)

80
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 2 10.5
70 Experimental (Cylinder 2)
9
Compressive strength (MPa)

60

Compressive strength (ksi)

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(b)

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 12
80
Experimental (Cylinder 3)
10.5
70
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(c)

1186
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 12
80
Experimental (Cylinder 4)
10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)
(d)

Fig. 7: Comparison of the proposed model with the experimental data of series “S” and the proposed model of Lu and Zhao
(2010)

90 12.8
Lu & Zhao (2010)
80 New Proposal
Experimental (Cylinder 1) 11.2
70
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (ksi)

9.6
60
8
50
6.4
40
4.8
30

3.2
20

10 1.6

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive Strain (mm/mm)

(a)

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 12
80
Experimental (Cylinder 2)
10.5
70
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive Strain (mm/mm)

(b)
1187
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 12
80
Experimental (Cylinder 3)
10.5
70

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(c)

90
Lu & Zhao (2010)
New Proposal 12
80
Experimental (Cylinder 4)
10.5
70
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (ksi)

9
60

50 7.5

40 6

30 4.5

20 3

10 1.5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Compressive strain (mm/mm)

(d)

Fig. 8: Comparison of the proposed model with the experimental data of series “M” and the proposed model of Lu and Zhao
(2010)

ascending and descending branches of the stress-strain
curves.
Using Eq. (1) and (2), new stress-strain curves are
generated and shown in Fig. 6 (for series “P”), Fig. 7
(for Series “S”) and Fig. 8 (for Series “M”). In the
following figures, the predicted stress-strain curves are
also compared with the experimental stress-strain
curves and those generated by using the model of Lu
and Zhao (2010). It can be observed that, the proposed
model for the prediction of stress-strain curves can
better predicts the stress-strain curves as compared to
the model of Lu and Zhao (2010).
1188
The fit goodness of the predicted stress-strain
curves to the experimental stress-strain curves is shown
in Table 5, which confirms that the proposed model
predicts the stress-strain curves better than the
predictive model of Lu and Zhao (2010).
It is worth mentioning that, the predictive model
proposed by the authors is investigated for the current
mix design (Table 2) and the testing conditions
mentioned in this study. In case of different mix design
and testing conditions, predictive results and 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 may
tend to vary (Table 7).
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014

Table 7: Comparison of the “RMS” and “V” values for the proposed proposed to further refine the stress-strain curves in
predictive model
order to fully utilize the engineering properties of
Lu and Zhao New proposed
Series Cylinder Parameters (2010) model HSC. The predicted stress-strain curves showed
“P” Cylinder 1 RMS 3.1110 3.9183 good agreement with the experimental results
Variance 0.9492 0.9044 based on the calculations of root mean square
Cylinder 2 RMS 4.2600 2.2290 errors “RMS” and coefficients of variance “V”.
Variance 0.9600 0.9939
Cylinder 3 RMS 8.9770 4.8516
Variance 0.8725 0.9500 ABBREVIATIONS
Cylinder 4 RMS 7.1000 4.9304
Variance 0.9132 0.9503
Series “P” RMS 5.8620 3.9820
Following notations are used in this article:
Average Variance 0.9237 0.9497
“S” Cylinder 1 RMS 3.7400 2.6811 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 , 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐 = Coordinates of any stress and strain
Variance 0.9953 0.9973
point on the stress-strain curve of plain
Cylinder 2 RMS 5.0190 5.6251
Variance 0.9882 0.9834 concrete
Cylinder 3 RMS 6.4780 7.2522 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ = Unconfined cylindrical concrete
Variance 0.9618 0.9507 compressive strength of plain concrete
Cylinder 4 RMS 4.5010 4.3145
Variance 0.9900 0.9898 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐′ = Strain corresponding to the peak
Series “S” RMS 4.9345 4.9682 compressive strength of plain concret
Average Variance 0.9838 0.9803 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = Initial tangent modulus of elasticity
“M” Cylinder 1 RMS 5.7180 5.0944
Variance 0.9898 0.9908 𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 = Secant modulus at peak stress (Ec =
Cylinder 2 RMS 1.3670 1.5851 fc′𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐′ for plain concrete
Variance 0.9988 0.9984 𝑘𝑘, 𝑘𝑘1 and 𝑘𝑘2 = Correction factors
Cylinder 3 RMS 6.3230 6.9560
Variance 0.9411 0.9242 𝑛𝑛, 𝛽𝛽 = Material parameters, 𝛽𝛽 depends on the
Cylinder 4 RMS 3.1780 1.9685 shape of the stress-strain curves and 𝑛𝑛
Variance 0.9842 0.9944 depends on the strength material
Series “M” RMS 5.1230 4.1470
Average Variance 0.9840 0.9785 𝑤𝑤 = Unit weight of concrete
Average RMS 4.9810 4.2840 εc,lim = Concrete strain corresponding to
Variance 0.9620 0.9690
particular limit stress on the falling
branch of the stress-strain curve
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The published predictive models are evaluated in
this study using the experimental results of two series
ASTM, 2003. ASTM C39-03: Standard Test
of HSC including concrete without replacing cement
content (i.e., plain concrete) and concrete in which 10% Method for Compressive Strength of
volume of the Meakaolin (MK) was added as a partial Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM,
replacement of OPC. The experimental results of West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
maximum compressive strength and its corresponding Carreira, D.J. and K.H. Chu, 1985. Stress-strain
strain were used as input parameters of the proposed relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI
predictive models to generate the complete stress-strain J., 85: 797-804.
curves. The following conclusions can be drawn from CEB-FIP Code 90, 1993. Model Code for Concrete
this study: Structures. Bulletin D'Information (117-E). British
Standard Institution, London, UK.
• The stress-strain curves generated by using all Hognestad, E., 1951. Study of combined bending and
existing predictive models do not show good axial load in reinforced concrete members. Bulletin
agreement with the current experimental data; No. 399, University of Illinois, Engineering
however, the predictive model of Hsu and Hsu Experiment Station.
(1994), as well as that of Lu and Zhao (2010) Hsu, L. and C.T. Hsu, 1994. Complete stress-strain
predict the rising and falling branches of stress- behaviour of high-strength concrete under
strain curves of HSC, respectively. This was compression. Mag. Concrete Res., 46(169):
confirmed by comparing the values of the root 301-312.
mean square errors “RMS” and coefficients of Khan, S., T. Ayub and S.F.A. Rafeeqi, 2013. Prediction
variance “V” for all the productive curves with the of compressive strength of plain concrete confined
experimental curves. with ferrocement using Artificial Neural Network
• A new predictive model, based on the models of (ANN) and comparison with existing mathematical
Hsu and Hsu (1994) and Lu and Zhao (2010) is models. Am. J. Civil Eng. Archit., 1: 7-14.
1189
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 8(10): 1174-1190, 2014
Lu, Z.H. and Y.G. Zhao, 2010. Empirical stress-strain
model for unconfined high-strength concrete under
uniaxial compression. J. Mater. Civil Eng., 22(11):
1181-1186.
Popovics, S., 1973. A numerical approach to the
complete stress-strain curve of concrete. Cement
Concrete Res., 3(5): 583-599.
Sargin, M. and V. Handa, 1969. A general formulation
for the stress-strain properties of concrete. SM
Report Solid Mechanics Division, University of
Waterloo, Canada, No. 3.
1190
View publication stats
Van Gysel, A. and L. Taerwe, 1996. Analytical
formulation of the complete stress-strain curve for
high strength concrete. Mater. Struct., 29(9):
529-533.
Wang, P., S. Shah and A. Naaman, 1978. Stress-strain
curves of normal and lightweight concrete in
compression. ACI J., 75: 603-611.
Wee, T., M. Chin and M. Mansur, 1996. Stress-strain
relationship of high-strength concrete in
compression. J. Mater. Civil Eng., 8(2): 70-76.